on the iran deal

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

As a secularist, I don't believe in blasphemy.

The reason our nation's government does not permit legal murder of homosexuals and (at least obvious) subjugation of women is because our government is SECULAR. The Founding Fathers wisely structured the young United States to try to keep religious zealots as far away from the seats of power as they could.

In your own home state of CA, a Christian lawyer this spring filed a ballot proposal to make it legal to shoot gay men and women in the head. Here is what this Christian lawyer had to say about homosexuality:

"Seeing that it is better that offenders should die rather than that all of us should be killed by God's just wrath against us for the folly of tolerating-wickedness in our midst, the People of California wisely command, in the fear of God, that any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method."

And here's another article from 2015 about Christian pastors who support stoning homosexuals to death, because it's in the Bible, after all:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progres...r-homosexuals/

And here's a lovely article about Christians who have murdered children in the name of disciplining them the way they believe the Bible tells them to:

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/26/a_st...abuse_partner/

And an article by a guy explaining why the Bible says it's okay to "gently" hit your wife:

http://christwire.org/2009/04/is-it-...beat-his-wife/

I should note in this rage-inducing article, he says that were it a few hundred years ago, he would gladly have helped kill a woman who committed adultery.

And the typical response is, "Well, but these people aren't REAL Christians." Yeah, tell that to them. Their response will be that they are the real deal and you're not. And they do believe they're doing a better job of following the Bible than you are.

And I am grateful I live in a nation where religion is not allowed to make the laws. And I pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that his Holy Noodleness continues to keep it that way.

Oh! One more. Reminder of the woman in Ireland who died because doctors refused her an abortion of a dying fetus that would have saved her life:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2128696.html

Highlight from the story:
""Again on Tuesday morning ... the consultant said it was the law, that this is a Catholic country. Savita said: `I am neither Irish nor Catholic' but they said there was nothing they could do," Praveen Halappanavar said."

I don't know if any of those people are real Christians, but what percentage of fundamentalist Christians do you think hold those views? We're not talking about 1%. We are talking about .00001%. How can you condemn a group based on what maybe one person out of 100,000 in that group thinks? That is ridiculous.

Did you see this story? These gay activists who aren't too bright were caught on tape saying they'd like to "kick Judge Kennedy's ass, then string him up, and kick his ass again." They said this before the Supreme Court ruling. As I said, they aren't too bright. They had no idea that Judge Kennedy was going to be the deciding vote in their favor.

http://barbwire.com/2015/06/12/hidde...thony-kennedy/

You claim, "The reason our nation's government does not permit legal murder of homosexuals is because our government is SECULAR." What are you smoking? Our government being secular has nothing to do with the murder of any people being illegal. Where do you come up with this stuff? I think most people are against murder, regardless of whether they are religious. I haven't seen any evidence that Christians are more tolerant of murder than atheists.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't know if any of those people are real Christians, but what percentage of fundamentalist Christians do you think hold those views? We're not talking about 1%. We are talking about .00001%. How can you condemn a group based on what maybe one person out of 100,000 in that group thinks? That is ridiculous.

Did you see this story? These gay activists who aren't too bright were caught on tape saying they'd like to "kick Judge Kennedy's ass, then string him up, and kick his ass again." They said this before the Supreme Court ruling. As I said, they aren't too bright. They had no idea that Judge Kennedy was going to be the deciding vote in their favor.

http://barbwire.com/2015/06/12/hidde...thony-kennedy/

You claim, "The reason our nation's government does not permit legal murder of homosexuals is because our government is SECULAR." What are you smoking? Our government being secular has nothing to do with the murder of any people being illegal. Where do you come up with this stuff? I think most people are against murder, regardless of whether they are religious. I haven't seen any evidence that Christians are more tolerant of murder than atheists.

Just curious. What is your magic number Let's call it the OU perecentage that you use before condeming a group based upon a small minority of them?

[Danzig]

http://www.lifewayresearch.com/2015/...-gay-marriage/


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-...b_2229509.html

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by jms62

Just curious. What is your magic number Let's call it the OU perecentage that you use before condeming a group based upon a small minority of them?

If the person is Muslim, I believe he works from a sample size of one.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

If the person is Muslim, I believe he works from a sample size of one.

Yes, how did you know? Any negative views I have on Islam are based on this one case that I heard about where a Muslim man slapped his wife. That's it. Aside from that, there is nothing to be critical about when it comes to Islam. There is nothing negative aside from that. I can't figure out where the criticism of Islam comes from.

What do you think Muslims throughout the world thought of Osama bin Laden a few years after 9/11? Here is the answer: Osama bin Laden is viewed favorably by large percentages in Pakistan (65%), Jordan (55%) and Morocco (45%).

http://www.people-press.org/2004/03/...fter-iraq-war/

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

Just curious. What is your magic number Let's call it the OU perecentage that you use before condeming a group based upon a small minority of them?

If it was in the 10-20% range, I would say that would definitely qualify. If it's in the one out of 100,000 range, that would not come close to qualifying.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You claim, "The reason our nation's government does not permit legal murder of homosexuals is because our government is SECULAR." What are you smoking? Our government being secular has nothing to do with the murder of any people being illegal. Where do you come up with this stuff? I think most people are against murder, regardless of whether they are religious. I haven't seen any evidence that Christians are more tolerant of murder than atheists.

The people hung as witches in Salem would beg to differ, except they're dead. But you know, colonial Massachusetts was run by Christian law back in 1692 and that's how things went then. Were the US gov't run by Christian fundamentalists today, there'd be a heck lot more "crimes" eligible for the death penalty.

And, in the long-ago era of 1994, a man got 18 months for murdering his wife, and the judge was upset he had to give him even that much, because, you know, she cheated on him, therefore her husband killing her was appropriate:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/199...-cheating-wife

This was in that barbaric nation known as the State of Maryland.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

The people hung as witches in Salem would beg to differ, except they're dead. But you know, colonial Massachusetts was run by Christian law back in 1692 and that's how things went then. Were the US gov't run by Christian fundamentalists today, there'd be a heck lot more "crimes" eligible for the death penalty.

And, in the long-ago era of 1994, a man got 18 months for murdering his wife, and the judge was upset he had to give him even that much, because, you know, she cheated on him, therefore her husband killing her was appropriate:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/199...-cheating-wife

This was in that barbaric nation known as the State of Maryland.

I don't see the article saying anything about the Judge in the Maryland case being Christian. If he is Christian, I thought you said that Christians are more likely to give the death penalty. This judge was lenient. He sounds like a liberal to me. I'm surprised he's not your favorite judge.

I have a question for you. If you did a poll right now and asked people what the punishment should be for murdering a cheating spouse, do you think that Christians would be more lenient on the killer than non-Christians? I don't think that would be the case. I think it would actually be the opposite. So I'm not sure what your point was.